Problem is that I don't know how to even begin to script such a thing.This Box Muller Transform looks pretty damn good.But maybe this is too much to ask.I think anything that would kind of make it humanlike would suffice.

I'm far from a mathmatician and I'm not exactly sure what the difference between human-like and computer would be, but you could try smoothing the plot points.e.g make each new plot the average between previous and current pointpseudo code example:

Anyways, I'm trying to make my "randomly" generated points a little more human-like.

If this is to fool an anti-bot software like those of MMO games, you better know that it is actually not hard to figure out someone is using a "weighted" form of randomness such as box muller transformation in their clicks. Any randomness algorithm you can come up will probably differ greatly from an actual human sample in no time. Your best shot to look "human like" is to collect actual human behaviour, shuffle it and than replicate. One such example is to collect the coordinates and timing of thousands of actual human clicks (record them for 1-2 hours), shuffle the sequences of coordinates and times and run the new set. This will include a distinct human behaviour pattern that is very hard for any anti-bot to find out.

I know this questions been solved and all, but I decided I'd take a stab at this sort of algorithm myself, despite my extreme lack of math skills...so I started out generating this (averaging with basevalue)#1then I got it to here (+noise)#2now (without noise) (averaging with prior value)#3 and with noise (averaging with prior value)#4more like The UnMathematician's False-Box Muller, lolLike I said bare in mind I have very poor math skills.*EDIT*After an idea hit me to try utilizing 3 uniform-boxes with progressively less chance of hitting outer boxesTripleBoxRandom#5then I added smoothing (averaging with prior value)#6 and a version with tweaked uniform box generation #7*EDIT* 2Heres an example from the code used in picture #4 with a bug-fix (which was causing a negative value bias)#8

I imagine if one did averaging with more than 2 values, periodically inserting the center value in there you could get a nice looking center biased plot.here is one where I average 3 values [prior, new and center]#9 or 50% chance to average with center #10

Anyways, I'm trying to make my "randomly" generated points a little more human-like.

If this is to fool an anti-bot software like those of MMO games, you better know that it is actually not hard to figure out someone is using a "weighted" form of randomness such as box muller transformation in their clicks. Any randomness algorithm you can come up will probably differ greatly from an actual human sample in no time. Your best shot to look "human like" is to collect actual human behaviour, shuffle it and than replicate. One such example is to collect the coordinates and timing of thousands of actual human clicks (record them for 1-2 hours), shuffle the sequences of coordinates and times and run the new set. This will include a distinct human behaviour pattern that is very hard for any anti-bot to find out.

I agree with Gio. None of the examples in this thread look to me like what a human click pattern would look like. The problem is that they all look too random.

From what I have seen, human click patterns tend to have a skewed axis aligned toward the center of the screen based on the position of the button being clicked. ie. A button in the far bottom right has a different click pattern than a button slightly off center to the left. Kind of a vaguely tear drop type shape. The shape of the button also plays a role. The script has to miss clicking on the button sometimes. The list goes on and on. The game has the advantage that is can collect the data from millions of human clicks and can look for any pattern that is out of the norm.

If the game was to actually track mouse movement, speed, and timing then it really becomes hard to look human with math. Bézier Curves and the likes are better than a straight line but they are far from human. On the plus side the game will probably be analysis the pattern with math so you just need a random algorithm good enough to fool their detection algorithm.

The sampling of actual human movements would probably be pretty good but intensive to develop and implement.

FanaticGuru wrote:From what I have seen, human click patterns tend to have a skewed axis aligned toward the center of the screen based on the position of the button being clicked. ie. A button in the far bottom right has a different click pattern than a button slightly off center to the left. Kind of a vaguely tear drop type shape.

FG

Maybe like this?The first one is with center smoothing offset right and slightly down, second one is just offset right.*EDIT*Seems a bit harder to get that teardrop shape without using actual maths, will experiment a bit and try for a sort of fireball shape if I can.

KuroiLight wrote:Maybe like this?The first one is with center smoothing offset right and slightly down, second one is just offset right.

These are better. For a rectangular button to the middle left of center of screen.

If the button was near the bottom left of the screen it would kind of have a counter clockwise twist to the axis. But it is not really a simple twist it is a skew in two directions.

Even for a button straight left of center, your pattern distribution is too symmetrically top and bottom. From what I read awhile back when I played with similar coding, humans tend to click a little more randomly high so that the top is more random and inaccurate than the bottom.

Your top one is more of this idea of skewing in two directions but at a glance it seems too blocky but on a rectangular button that might actual be it but I like the distribution from the center better on the second but too symmetrical top and bottom. You don't want the pattern to be too symmetrical on any axis as that is math that a detection algorithm could look for. From what I understand with real human movement it is a skew on multiple axis based on multiple factors. Arm movement will cause it to be skewed one way in the direction that arms move naturally, hand movement to be skewed another as wrist tend to move better side to side than up and down, fingers, eyes, psychology, etc. tending to make errors in multiple discernable axis.

Now don't get me wrong, you can definitely do it well enough to fool most games as they don't want to spend the processing power and bandwidth not to mention the coding expertise to implement really good. It is just hard to fool a focused analysis. Game companies don't really care about cheating, only disruption. If the cheating is not affecting their servers or other players too much, they don't care too much. There are other statistics that are easier to collect to flag suspicious play.

FanaticGuru wrote:Now don't get me wrong, you can definitely do it well enough to fool most games as they don't want to spend the processing power and bandwidth not to mention the coding expertise to implement really good. It is just hard to fool a focused analysis. Game companies don't really care about cheating, only disruption. If the cheating is not affecting their servers or other players too much, they don't care too much. There are other statistics that are easier to collect to flag suspicious play.

FG

I would think most anti-cheats, if they even implement any sort of click analysis would focus more on click times than locations, unless ofcoarse your bot or what ever was clicking the same spots every time then it would be pretty obvious.Anyways I was just doing to see if I could with few math skills, Ill more than likely use the random generation for 1-dimensional sleeps/timers/clicktimes to make things like auto-clickers look more organic than a simple random.heres a visualization of what I mean, (mind the poor gif speed)